IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v18y2020i3d10.1007_s40258-019-00536-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapeutic Use of Safety-Engineered Syringes in Healthcare Facilities in India

Author

Listed:
  • Pankaj Bahuguna

    (Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research)

  • Shankar Prinja

    (Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research)

  • Chandrakant Lahariya

    (World Health Organization Country Office for India)

  • Radha Krishan Dhiman

    (Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research)

  • Madhumita Prem Kumar

    (Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research)

  • Vineeta Sharma

    (Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research)

  • Arun Kumar Aggarwal

    (Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research)

  • Rajesh Bhaskar

    (Department of Health and Family Welfare)

  • Hilde Graeve

    (World Health Organization Country Office for India)

  • Henk Bekedam

    (World Health Organization Country Office for India)

Abstract

Background Globally, 16 billion injections are administered each year of which 95% are for curative care. India contributes 25–30% of the global injection load. Over 63% of these injections are reportedly unsafe or deemed unnecessary. Objectives To assess the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with the introduction of safety-engineered syringes (SES) as compared to disposable syringes for therapeutic care in India. Methods A decision tree was used to compute the volume of needle-stick injuries (NSIs) and reuse episodes among healthcare professionals and the patient population. Subsequently, three separate Markov models were used to compute lifetime costs and QALYs for individuals infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Three SES were evaluated—reuse prevention syringe (RUP), sharp injury prevention (SIP) syringe, and syringes with features of both RUP and SIP. A lifetime study horizon starting from a base year of 2017 was considered appropriate to cover all costs and consequences comprehensively. A systematic review was undertaken to assess the SES effects in terms of reduction in NSIs and reuse episodes. These were then modelled in terms of reduction in transmission of blood-borne infections, life-years and QALYs gained. Future costs and consequences were discounted at the rate of 3%. Incremental cost per QALY gained was computed to assess the cost-effectiveness. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken to account for parameter uncertainties. Results The introduction of RUP, SIP and RUP + SIP syringes in India is estimated to incur an incremental cost of Indian National Rupee (INR) 61,028 (US$939), INR 7,768,215 (US$119,511) and INR 196,135 (US$3017) per QALY gained, respectively. A total of 96,296 HBV, 44,082 HCV and 5632 HIV deaths are estimated to be averted due to RUP in 20 years. RUP has an 84% probability to be cost-effective at a threshold of per capita gross domestic product (GDP). The RUP syringe can become cost saving at a unit price of INR 1.9. Similarly, SIP and RUP + SIP syringes can be cost-effective at a unit price of less than INR 1.2 and INR 5.9, respectively. Conclusion RUP syringes are estimated to be cost-effective in the Indian context. SIP and RUP + SIP syringes are not cost-effective at the current unit prices. Efforts should be made to bring down the price of SES to improve its cost-effectiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • Pankaj Bahuguna & Shankar Prinja & Chandrakant Lahariya & Radha Krishan Dhiman & Madhumita Prem Kumar & Vineeta Sharma & Arun Kumar Aggarwal & Rajesh Bhaskar & Hilde Graeve & Henk Bekedam, 2020. "Cost-Effectiveness of Therapeutic Use of Safety-Engineered Syringes in Healthcare Facilities in India," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 393-411, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:18:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-019-00536-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-019-00536-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-019-00536-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-019-00536-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shankar Prinja & Akashdeep Chauhan & Blake Angell & Indrani Gupta & Stephen Jan, 2015. "A Systematic Review of the State of Economic Evaluation for Health Care in India," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(6), pages 595-613, December.
    2. Government of India, 2017. "National Health Policy 2017," Working Papers id:11664, eSocialSciences.
    3. Shankar Prinja & Pankaj Bahuguna & Ajay Duseja & Manmeet Kaur & Yogesh Kumar Chawla, 2018. "Cost of Intensive Care Treatment for Liver Disorders at Tertiary Care Level in India," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 179-190, June.
    4. Shankar Prinja & Laura E. Downey & Vijay K. Gauba & Soumya Swaminathan, 2018. "Health Technology Assessment for Policy Making in India: Current Scenario and Way Forward," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 1-3, March.
    5. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 1st June 2020
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2020-06-01 11:00:00

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shankar Prinja & Sehr Brar & Maninder Pal Singh & Kavitha Rajsekhar & Oshima Sachin & Jyotsna Naik & Malkeet Singh & Himanshi Tomar & CHSI Study Collaborating Investigators & Pankaj Bahuguna & Lorna G, 2020. "Process evaluation of health system costing – Experience from CHSI study in India," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-22, May.
    2. Chiranjeev Sanyal & Don Husereau, 2020. "Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Services Provided by Community Pharmacists," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 375-392, June.
    3. Arantzazu Arrospide & Oliver Ibarrondo & Iván Castilla & Igor Larrañaga & Javier Mar, 2022. "Development and Validation of a Discrete Event Simulation Model to Evaluate the Cardiovascular Impact of Population Policies for Obesity," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(2), pages 241-254, February.
    4. Mark Oppe & Daniela Ortín-Sulbarán & Carlos Vila Silván & Anabel Estévez-Carrillo & Juan M. Ramos-Goñi, 2021. "Cost-effectiveness of adding Sativex® spray to spasticity care in Belgium: using bootstrapping instead of Monte Carlo simulation for probabilistic sensitivity analyses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 711-721, July.
    5. Kaitlyn Hastings & Clara Marquina & Jedidiah Morton & Dina Abushanab & Danielle Berkovic & Stella Talic & Ella Zomer & Danny Liew & Zanfina Ademi, 2022. "Projected New-Onset Cardiovascular Disease by Socioeconomic Group in Australia," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 449-460, April.
    6. Tajul Masron & Mduduzi Biyase & Talent Zwane & Thomas Udimal & Frederich Kirsten, 2023. "Ecological footprint and population health outcomes: an analysis of E7 countries," Economics Working Papers edwrg-07-2023, College of Business and Economics, University of Johannesburg, South Africa, revised 2023.
    7. G. Kent Fellows & Daniel J. Dutton & Aidan Hollis, 2018. "Making Sure Orphan Drugs Don’t Get Left Behind," SPP Communique, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 10(6), August.
    8. Andrea Marcellusi & Raffaella Viti & Loreta A. Kondili & Stefano Rosato & Stefano Vella & Francesco Saverio Mennini, 2019. "Economic Consequences of Investing in Anti-HCV Antiviral Treatment from the Italian NHS Perspective: A Real-World-Based Analysis of PITER Data," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 255-266, February.
    9. Risha Gidwani & Louise B. Russell, 2020. "Estimating Transition Probabilities from Published Evidence: A Tutorial for Decision Modelers," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 38(11), pages 1153-1164, November.
    10. Shawhan, Daniel L. & Picciano, Paul D., 2019. "Costs and benefits of saving unprofitable generators: A simulation case study for US coal and nuclear power plants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 383-400.
    11. Round, Jeff, 2012. "Is a QALY still a QALY at the end of life?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 521-527.
    12. Xinyue Dong & Xiaoning He & Jing Wu, 2022. "Cost Effectiveness of the First‐in‐Class ARNI (Sacubitril/Valsartan) for the Treatment of Essential Hypertension in a Chinese Setting," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 40(12), pages 1187-1205, December.
    13. Joseph F. Levy & Marjorie A. Rosenberg, 2019. "A Latent Class Approach to Modeling Trajectories of Health Care Cost in Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(5), pages 593-604, July.
    14. Richard Isralowitz & Mor Yehudai & Daichi Sugawara & Akihiro Masuyama & Shai-li Romem Porat & Adi Dagan & Alexander Reznik, 2022. "Economic Impact on Health and Well-Being: Comparative Study of Israeli and Japanese University “Help” Profession Students," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-11, November.
    15. Jisoo A Kwon & Georgina M Chambers & Fabio Luciani & Lei Zhang & Shamin Kinathil & Dennis Kim & Hla-Hla Thein & Willings Botha & Sandra Thompson & Andrew Lloyd & Lorraine Yap & Richard T Gray & Tony B, 2021. "Hepatitis C treatment strategies in prisons: A cost-effectiveness analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(2), pages 1-13, February.
    16. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    17. Shu Yan & Lizi Pan & Yan Lu & Juan Chen & Ting Zhang & Dongzi Xu & Zhaolian Ouyang, 2023. "Towards Sustainable Drug Supply in China: A Bibliometric Analysis of Drug Reform Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-20, June.
    18. Jorge Luis García & James J. Heckman, 2021. "Early childhood education and life‐cycle health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(S1), pages 119-141, November.
    19. Liang-Chung Huang & Wu-Fu Chung & Shih-Wei Liu & Jau-Ching Wu & Li-Fu Chen & Yu-Chun Chen, 2019. "Characteristics of Non-Emergent Visits in Emergency Departments: Profiles and Longitudinal Pattern Changes in Taiwan, 2000–2010," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-16, June.
    20. Stephen Morris & Kurinchi S Gurusamy & Jessica Sheringham & Brian R Davidson, 2015. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Endoscopic Ultrasound versus Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography in Patients with Suspected Common Bile Duct Stones," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-12, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:18:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s40258-019-00536-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.